Ruane v. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center
| Decision Date | 21 January 1983 |
| Citation | 91 A.D.2d 1176,459 N.Y.S.2d 147 |
| Parties | Colleen RUANE and Joseph Ruane, Respondents, v. NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant, and David R. Cooper, M.D., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brown, Kelly, Turner, Hassett & Leach by Andrew Merrick, Buffalo, for appellant.
Hagerty & Hagerty by Thomas Hagerty, Buffalo, for respondents.
Before DILLON, P.J., and DOERR, DENMAN, BOOMER and SCHNEPP, JJ.
In 1975 plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure at defendant hospital wherein holes were drilled in her skull after which the holes were filled in with burr hole covers which held the craniotomy flap in place. The burr hole covers were provided by the hospital. Plaintiff experienced pain in the cranial area for a number of years and continued to receive treatment from her physician until March 1980. In May 1981 she sought further medical consultation and upon the lifting of the cranial flap it was discovered that the burr hole covers were surrounded by pus which contained staph infection. This action for medical malpractice was commenced in October 1981 alleging that defendant hospital supplied non-sterile burr hole covers. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations. Special Term denied the motion relying upon the exceptions to the customary Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice actions: the continuous treatment doctrine (Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 237 N.Y.S.2d 319, 187 N.E.2d 777), imputing to defendant hospital the continuing treatment by plaintiff's physician and the "foreign object" exception (Flanagan v. Mount Eden Gen. Hosp., 24 N.Y.2d 427, 301 N.Y.S.2d 23, 248 N.E.2d 871). We conclude that neither exception is applicable.
Prior to enactment of CPLR 214-a, a prosthetic device could be deemed a "foreign object" if the device broke after implantation (see, e.g., Szajna v. Rand, 75 A.D.2d 617, 427 N.Y.S.2d 57 [broken intramedullary nail]; Murphy v. St. Charles Hosp., 35 A.D.2d 64, 312 N.Y.S.2d 978, cited with approval in Dobbins v. Clifford, 39 A.D.2d 1, 3, 330 N.Y.S.2d 743). The rationale for the exception is that the presence of the foreign object is conclusive proof of negligence and thus the danger of belated, false, or frivolous claims is eliminated and the patient's action rests not on "professional diagnostic judgment", but on the physical presence of the foreign object (Murphy v. St. Charles Hosp., supra, 35 A.D.2d p. 66, 312 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colonresto v. Good Samaritan Hosp.
...McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR 214-a, 1987 Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, at p. 277; see also, Ruane v. Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Center, 91 A.D.2d 1176, 459 N.Y.S.2d 147, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 908, 470 N.Y.S.2d 576, 458 N.E.2d 1253; Florio v. Cook, 65 A.D.2d 548, 408 N.Y.S.2d 949, aff......
-
Altman-Gubernikoff v. Garely
...to treat "stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse." (Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 11-1) at 5-6). Ruane v. Niagara Falls Mem'l Med. Ctr., 91 A.D.2d 1176, 1177 (4th Dept. 1983), aff'd, 60 N.Y.2d 908 (1983) - also cited by Plaintiffs (Pltf. Br. (Dkt. No. 32) at 7) - is likewise not on point.......
-
Catherwood v. American Sterilizer Co.
...treatment by a physician to the drug manufacturer of the drugs he prescribed, and in Ruane v. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, 91 App.Div.2d 1176, 459 N.Y.S.2d 147 (4th Dept.1983), the court would not impute the continuous treatment by a surgeon to the hospital in which the surgery wa......
-
Kearney v. GVGHA (Genesee Valley Group Health Ass'n)
...48 N.Y.2d 792, 423 N.Y.S.2d 917, 399 N.E.2d 947; Coyne v. Bersani, 94 A.D.2d 961, 463 N.Y.S.2d 967; and Ruane v. Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Center, 91 A.D.2d 1176, 459 N.Y.S.2d 147). The facts of this case are strikingly different, The "Member Handbook" of the Wilson Health Center, which displ......